tv [untitled] May 23, 2014 10:30pm-11:01pm PDT
the 25 meaning they wouldn't be the ones we'd have to go through and this problem you just described would be eliminated; is that correct? >> that's correct. and the numbers i sent yesterday i did include -- >> it was sort of overwhelming so i've just been hearing from some folks that we'd get less money. i'm hearing from other folks that's not necessarily true because they're still adding to the fund, it's just that we would be able to withdraw more than 25 per isn't of cent of that fund if needed; correct? >> one of the changes proposed is if the funds are split into a district reserve and city reserve, from the district reserve the board of ed could approve a draw of up to 50 percent of the district [inaudible] so that's -- that
is one change, but in technical terms, that would be less than 25 percent of the whole balance in the rainy day reserve, but at least there would be certainty about that. >> that's why we think there would be less money. >> thank you. i want to follow up on that. this is where my antenna goes up because i want to make sure we thought through the whole thing. clearly there are people that beyond the rating agency issue think this is a better situation for them. so i mean, i haven't -- i have to confess and i haven't read through your whole memo that you sent us so you may have done this, but it just seems to me, like, if you could play out the scenarios of the last few years -- i mean, i understand those conversations were very id owe sin cattic -- but if you look at the city had this much
in the fund and this is the amount that we were -- the gross amount we were entitled to regard less of what we actually agreed to or negotiated, i wonder if we should do some comparison that way. do you know what i mean? >> i do. and that is part of the overwhelming set of information i sent yesterday. one thing i will say to provide some reassurance about process. the process for this discussion, if -- and hopefully there will be an introduction of legislation regarding all of this that would be introduced at the board of supervisors. that too would be referred to committee and there would be discussion in committee which would take place in june.
so there is time for all of the commissioners and the public for that matter, to study the implications of these changes and i'm hoping -- i just have not found a really easy way to avoid some of the technical information so, you know, i apologize for sending you so many different schedules, but that was what i was trying to provide, to depict, what might happen under the current language versus these proposed modifications. and there is time to study that and haven't had any mark ups in the rules committee at the board of supervisors. >> it may be that if we ever hit on the perfect way of playing this out that we end up with a little less money and that may be okay because we may prefer to have 100 percent control over less money than no
control over more money. i want to make sure we've played through all the different angles. >> i think what you just said is the essence of the financial aspect of this. aside from the lay off, which i think is beneficial in any case, but the bird in the hand ver susz sus two in the bush. >> i think it would be a trade off a little bit. the things we struggle with each year, and then the other thing is that we have to then sort of do the [inaudible] to the city to make sure -- it would eliminate all of that. i think that what i would like to see is what commissioner norton said sort of you under the scenario how much would we be getting.
instead of 25 percent of 25 percent, 25 percent of 100 percent. isn't that what we're looking at? you mentioned earlier that the deadline for this is next tuesday. is that something you need to report tonight to give you direction? >> well, the only thing i'd need to know is if the board is not comfortable with something being introduced, then i certainly -- that would be relevant information to know because we would change course. [laughter] but if you're comfortable with legislation along these lines being introduced, then that's the direction we'll pursue and we'll keep you informed.
and of course if you have any questions i'll be glad to go through it and/or if there's an interest in proposing any amendments to the language that is introduced, then there's time to have that discussion. >> thank you. >> if i understand correctly then, whatever legislation pertaining to the rainy day fund that is introduced by may 20 would still be subject to the 30 day holding period and would still be subject to amendments, correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner maufus. >> so along that thinking -- and maybe you mentioned it in your comments and i sort of see it here alluded to. regards to the amendments that are expected to be taken up on june 12 and 19th, are those
amendments happening in sort of an ongoing discussion way and then they come forward fully formed as an amendment at a rules committee meeting at the board of supervisors, or is that rules committee meeting meant to have that commission formulate and come forward and have that sort of process broken down there. and by the time that meeting is over, those recommendations will go on to the full board? >> commissioner, my honest answer is we don't completely know, but i suspect that there would at least be some preparation going into the committee meeting or the committee deliberations about these measures. if there's an interest on the part of the board or community members or the mayor, i mean -- i suspect that some work -- it
would only behoove the stakeholders who have an interest in seeing some of the language change versus what was introduced on april 29 to go through the task of identifying some specific edits or mark ups to propose at the committee whenever it takes place. >> and then as a part of our preparation process for input, it is along the lines of what you're informing us here and then the possible changes. they are -- this is an ongoing conversation but the last large bull et point regarding withdraws in your presentation, that is on ongoing conversation, or you're here to get the temperature of the board? these are concrete changes we'd
like to see and like you to take that forward and the board of supervisors as part of our preparation. does that make sense? >> yes. the legislation that's been drafted, which you have in your packet, that reflects everything that's on this page on page 6 and of the three options that are listed on page six, options for conditions for withdrawals, it reflects the first one of those. continue to base the maximum draw on decline and inflation adjusted per people revenues, and one specific comment that commissioner wynns has made tonight, which i think is one that we should try to change to the version that you have before you is to explicitly said that the third peef revenues will not be included as part of the calculations in
the decrease or change in revenues. that we can change in the legislation that we propose that the mayor and individual supervisor introduce next week and from that point on it would be referred to a committee and be subject to future amendments. >> thank you, and i support that. thank you for articulating that. >> i want to go on record as supporting the amendment. i think one of the toughest tasks the members have had has had to do with lay offs. really just a terrible situation and so your first bull let bullet point, i'm
very interested in seeing that change. i think if we think about the lay off process that we've had to go through in the past years, it's very cruel and unusual punishment for or valuable assets so i'm interested in making this charter amendment. >> commissioner [inaudible]. >> i had a question. >> go ahead. >> were you going to -- two questions. one, do we know who would introduce this next week? >> i've had some discussion with supervisor kim and will be meeting with her tomorrow morning to go through the specific language. >> and the other question is really sort of where this proposal came from originally. i mean, so this idea that the
restriction that we would only withdraw 30 percent in a particular year and was that our idea, was that brought to us by the mayor's office. how did this particular structure evolve? >> we talked about this and what some of the features that were problematic to the district. that if we were going to make any changes like splitting up the reserve, we'd also change the first and foremost of those changes regarding the lay offs.
for that matter, allowing the majority to change the conditions. those actually came from the controller as well through sort of a brainstorming discussion and, you know, i think those are -- those would be very favorable to the district so i was happy to agree with those suggestions on his part. i think those are the two ideas that he proposed, which made a lot of sense to me. as far as the [inaudible]. >> right, it's really a reflection of the current charter language, which separates the amount that can be appropriated to the district
to 25 percent of the balance of the reserve. >> i just wonder if that -- president fewer maybe was joking, but maybe not. i mean, maybe -- >> now i'm thinking that could we present something like that, that instead of 75/25, that it's 60/40? [laughter] >> and president fewer, are you referring to the distribution of the original split of the current balance? that might be something we could discuss. i don't think that there would be -- frankly i don't think it'd be possible to change the distribution of future deposits to the reserve so there's two questions as far as the amounts. one is if the original split,
the balance in the reserve at the time when it's split into two separate reserves that's one question. and the second question is what is the distribution of future deposits that the city might make in future years. and so my read is that that second issue issue is very unlikely to change from the 75, 25 percent. second issue is less clear, but just want to make sure commissioners know that there's a distinction between those two questions about the amounts. >> i just want to follow up a little bit. now that i'm thinking about it, i don't understand why -- i mean, i would need you to tell my why we would want the
restriction that we could only take 50 percent of the 25 percent in any one year because that's not what happens now. now we get up to 25 percent. now, the reason that we have gotten these spikes at some times is because it's 25 percent of the whole reserve and because the city has so much restrictions for how they could take it out, it's been growing so that 25 percent, once we've established our eligibility for that certain year has been a lot and certainly in the years we were most desperate because -- with the budget issues, so i don't -- why should there be a restriction on how much we could take in one year? i do understand that should this language as proposed go through, we could change that rule 2/3 of the board could change that rule so maybe we
want that limitation of 50 percent in any one year because it's sort of a -- it's kind of a restriction on us that keeps us sort of actually having a rainy day fund ourselves, saving it because budget problems don't tend to happen only in one year. unless we do it to ourselves, but for actual revenue problems are cyclical so, you know, we don't want to spend the whole thing one year if we might need it the following year. i appreciate you're saying that, that came from the controller, but now that we're talking about it, it's raising the question do we want that or not? and by the way, why would they care? >> well, that was offered just as -- in the sort of -- they
don't really care, i don't think, but it's offered in the spirit of brainstorming and helping us think of, frankly, incentives that the board might face and depleting the funds in one year. so what you described is d is basically the thinking that there would be a balance, an ability to have the funds last for more than one year. as you know we have intense budget pressure so to provide a little bit of a stopgap of depleting the funds in one year, so that would be modified or offset by the other provision that would a law five allow five members of the board of education to change
those rules and if they chose by majority vote to change those rules. >> i would add to what deputy [inaudible] had said that just keep in mind -- i just warrant to remind want to remind us all that we've made substantial progress with peef. this is another part of what allows the board of education to control its own destiny and i don't think we can overemphasize how important it will be to be able to use this money to avoid lay offs, rather than rescind lay offs. i think the city was being magnanimous in coming forwards in saying we want to help in this regard. they really had no reason to. that said, i do appreciate the fact we want to make sure we're
protecting our interests as well. i think this is a good deal for us. i think it gives the board the ability to control the destiny of the district, and then we will have some other revenues that will come to us with hopefully the acquiescence of the public. soon we're going to have to land the plane and my recommendation is this is a good thing for us. >> any other comments? okay, seeing none. wow, i was spell bound by that whole thing. okay. [laughter]
consent calendar resolutions none tonight. vote on consent calendar, moved and seconded. [inaudible]. >> ready for a vote? >> i believe we have a response to commissioner norton's question. what is the question and response again? >> so i believe commissioner norton was asking about a resolution for the student nutritional services department on k 21, page 98, is it timely for me to provide an answer? is that -- >> i got the answer, so -- but if -- for everybody else i think that would be good. >> i believe commissioner norton's question was is this a new function that we're investing in and the answer is, it's not a new function, but it's a switch of the vendor so we have had, for several years, a vendor called horizon, that
has provided some sort of analogous services for processing meals applications and we have experienced some issues in that regard and we've decided to go with this new vendor, cyber soft technologies and we're expecting that will increase the reliability, accuracy and timeliness in processing those applications. >> yes, commissioner [inaudible]. >> the contract is for horizon. >> so the immediate -- on page 100 is an $83,000 contract for horizon to do point of sale. is that different from the meal application and are the issues
not applicable to the point of sale software? >> these are for two different scopes of work so second one, k 22, is for basically the payment of the school meals, the electronic debits and credits of the purchasing, the cash register so that a family or parent or guardian can prepay or carry a balance that they would -- you know, pay plus, right? this is the first one, k 21 is for processing the applications for eligibility for the free meals. >> i gather from this that they're different systems, they don't have to talk to each
other, or they can talk to each other even if they're different? >> okay, thank you. so i think we're ready for the vote. thank you. mr. haney. >> yes. >> miss maufus. >> [inaudible]. >> we're voting on the consent calendar vote. >> yes. >> miss mendoza-mcdonnell, doctor miss norton, six is. >> thank you. consent calendar -- no, [inaudible] first reading. can i have a motion and second, please? >> so moved. >> [inaudible]. >> second. >> i will read the item. in support of naming the
daniel webster library. can i have a motion in the second for this next one which is authorization to pursue a grant opportunity to strengthen and enhance a turn around leadership program with an [inaudible] for the selection, preparation, placement, support and retention of turn around leaders in school improvement grant schools. >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. i will refer this to the budget and business services and the curriculum and program committee. board members proposals first reading, none. >> the budget business services meeting the tomorrow so this won't come before the committee until june so -- >> okay. >> [inaudible] maybe june or -- >> is there a time constraint on this permission to --
>> hi commissioners. there is -- there was actually a hope that this would have come with a waiver of the first reading to sort of just give us a chance to move forward with the grant opportunity. the only -- there's not an issue if we can still apply, but if we apply, we still consider -- these things run in parallel. in other words, we apply, but also run this through the various committees and have our decisions and if for some reason we decided we weren't interested we would withdraw our application. we're not sure we're still working on it and the feasibility of getting it in, but i think that's no problem
of referring it to the committees. >> do we have consensus about that? we will hear this in the committee, but the district will pursue this grant opportunity, paralleling our authorization process. commissioner -- >> i don't have any reservations for applying for taking advantage of this opportunity, so i would assume move for a waiver on approval on first reading if that's allowed. >> you would have to post that in the agenda and it wasn't posted in the agenda. >> could we just bring it down for second reading at the meeting without it going to committee? a: we >> we could do that and still hear it in committee. >> we could hear it in two weeks, but do you need to have direction now? >> i think i heard some direction, which is that we could apply in parallel.
the other thing is it would help if in two weeks we were doing it because we could refer to the application itself that it has been reads for a first time and it's up for and being voted upon by our district. so it could be something we could add to the application if we knew that was going to happen expeditiously. >> that's fine. mr. steel, would you please make a note of this. at the next agenda review for the meeting of may 27 that we will bring this back for a vote. in the meantime, there [inaudible] will pursue this opportunity simultaneously. that what i heard? >> that's what -- that sounds good. >> that's what i heard. okay. >> [inaudible]. [laughter] >> oh, that right. >> if i'm understanding correctly, so it's still going to go to committee so you'll be
presenting at the june 2 curriculum committee meeting and a subsequent budget committee; is that correct? >> i think we said we would burr pursue this and skip the committee. you could report us back with a report and update about what's happening with that grant opportunity. thank you very much. now, board members, proposal first reading none. board members report from the city and school district select committee. public commissioner wynns, you want to report on that. looks like [inaudible] is not here. >> certainly. the item that we had on the agenda was the review of summer learning programs an all the various summer opportunities that we have for kids, both from
our own extended learning initiative and others fundsed by dcyf. >> i wanted to add that this saturday is the first day to enroll in the summer program for the park so if you want to get the classes you want, 10:00 am they start checking in online and you can apply. and we had a reauthorization for the peef fund which we discussed tonight. >> which basically was the same timeline. it was informational about when things would be introduced and that there would be these various proposals that would possibly be merged after introduced. >> thank you. report from the student assignment, commissioner [inaudible]. >> thank you. at the april 29 meeting, we had four informational items. the first one was a middle